Size inclusivity or not

[D20]

I was going to post this the other day after seeing an article about Rixo but couldn’t think how to word it without it causing offence. It seems to have reared its head again with the limited edition M&S collection out today only going up to a size 18. Do brands owe us size inclusivity?

I’ll say again that I mean no offence I just wondered how inclusive should a brand be and picked Rixo because it’s not a high street brand and M&S because it is - does this make a difference?

I dont think retailers ‘owe’ us larger sizes but presumably a good deal of the population is larger than a size 18 so I would have thought it would be good business sense to stock sizes that are larger than this?

Rixo had apparently promised to be more inclusive but drew back after one size inclusive collection so I can only presume it wasn’t selling in the volumes necessary to make a decent profit. One thing I did read was about the difficulties of pattern sizing for a large range of sizes so I’d imagine this and the setting out costs for all of the sizes would be considerable for lower volume retailers.

It does depend on if they think the bigger sizes will sell - M&S do have larger sizes, it’s just this particular range they’ve not taken bigger than a 18.

another question would be should they offer a full range of sizes in all styles the chain sells, or only the ones they think will sell to larger customers?

is it just larger dress sizes that are needed to be inclusive? I need petite (and proper petite, not their recent “call it petite but make it so it’s too long for anyone shorter than 5’5” “), M&S do sell petite versions of some of their products but nowhere near all.

Ultimately they are a business. If they sold out of size 20 and up regularly, they’d make more.

I imagine it’s just finances. It costs more to make bigger sizes due to sizing up the design as mentioned above, I guess also they use more fabric but I’m not sure if that’d make much of a difference?

but also if they don’t sell as well it’ll impact the profit margins. And then they might need to up the prices and then the size 8s and size 14s won’t sell at the new price.

if it was profitable companies would do it. And I guess it isn’t fair to expect other people to subsidise larger sizes?

I remember a few years ago when M&S did a dedicated range for sizes up to 30. It lasted for several seasons but they don’t do it now, so I assume it wasn’t profitable.

The problem, from my point of view, was that a lot of styles were not flattering to larger people, such as sleeveless tops, dresses fitted to the waist and high necked items. From a “body positivity” angle anyone should be able to wear any style they like, and many people do, but I prefer to hide my fat upper arms and tummy and show my neck and upper chest and that’s not unusual.

I agree- wish there was better variety/availability in petite clothing at pretty much all stores. Things sell out so quickly.

It would be interesting to see what percentages of UK women wear what sizes, does anyone know?

Eg
5% are size 6
10% are size 8
...
8% are size 20
5% are size 22
3% are size 24

Examples I've made up, but if it was something like this, it would be valid to ask why they sell size 6 but not size 22.

But with that argument, are you wanting every clothes retailer to sell all sizes and heights for all sections of the population? So every line needs to be size 4 to size 28 and each of these must be available in three different heights as well? Do plus size shops now have to cater to slim people as well? Long Tall Sally needs to start selling petite clothes?

What about gluten free people? Every bakery must now sell a GF version of every cake they sell. And dairy free. And nut free.

And now I think of it, there are quite a few bookshops which have neglected to offer every book in Braille...

To be fair, “size 6” can be very varied.

according to Boden, I’m a size 6. But I need a size 10 in New Look. New Look also sell sizes 6 and 8. Saying what percentage wears a particular size depends on where they shop.

I’d be interested in the stats too but I might be one size on the top and another on the bottom. A quick google basically says we’re all getting fatter so the clothing industry will just have to keep up. Supply and demand.

I felt a bit sorry for M&S on Instagram today with the negative comments on inclusive sizing. The gist of one comment said the bigger influencer they chose wasn’t big enough and that made me feel uncomfortable for said influencer.

Yes. I have a size 6 dress and a size 14 dress in my wardrobe. Also as PP mentioned M&S deciding short legs were now a couple of inches longer. No one told my legs that 😂

The designs did look very Sienna though and true to the styles she wears. What would you have wanted to see and would it be her style do you think? I’ve no idea about her body hang ups if she has any but if it was me I wouldn’t include shorts for example because I want to cover my thighs.

I was fascinated when I learnt that patterns are only actually designed and tried on a real person in one size, usually a 10 or 12 I think. From that they just scale it up or down, but you can only go a few sizes either way until the proportions don't work.

I’ve been a size 12 most of my life. My clothes from 20/30 years ago still fit me. I now have to buy a size 10 or even 8 these days. I believe I haven’t changed - it’s clothes sizes.

Recently bought a dress from Rixo. Had to return it for a size 6! Find the same with Libby London and Jigsaw.

@MajorMischa
It would be interesting to see what percentages of UK women wear what sizes, does anyone know?

There used to be a clothing brand called something like Sixteen47 with which Dawn French was involved. IIRC is was called that because, they said, 47% of British women were size 16 and above.

Sorry, I don’t understand this. The range I’m thinking of pre-dated the current Curve range - which I hadn’t realised existed until I just googled it.

I’m going back 20+ years.

Or perhaps I just thought it had gone.

Brands don’t “owe” anyone anything but it is just a horrible human experience when you can’t find anything that will fit your body. I think it’s hard to imagine unless you’ve been there and it compounds the feeling of being alienated by society.

Everyone is giving M&S grief when in my view they’re pretty good (low bar) - John Lewis e.g. have an awful selection and barely go above a 16 except some grim “plus size” range.

I bought my Sienna x M&S blouse early in the day, I think about 15 mins after the range went on sale. I looked at how the range was doing about nine hours later and the smaller sizes had sold out and the larger sizes were still in stock.

I thought you meant the Sienna collection sorry.

No they dont owe sizes to people and I say that as someone who was very big and really struggled 30 years ago to find nice things to wear.

Shops are businesses. I dont know where this idea seems to come from in people that shops are our friends, that they exist there for our benefit!

They are businesses in it for profit, just like someone who is a builder or a car manufacturer, they are selling products to the public and some brands aim at particular demographics. They'll sell what they think will make them the most profit and be more attractive to their demographic, its as simple as that

My legs are really short even though Im not short. Im pissed off I can never find anything in a leg length for me, but there you are.

Yes that brand had some lovely stuff

I also used to like Taking Shape.

Just to mention Curve, I thought that was a brand within Roman, not M+S?

Ive slimmed down now so I dont fit into those brands now, should they start doing smaller sizes for me?

If we're talking specifically about SM collection, I think it's a small collection 'inspired' by someone who is petite and very slim and tbh seems to wear clothes that wouldn't flatter a larger person anyway (I am a larger person btw!).

If it was a collection by Nigella Lawson, I would expect a different look and for it to cater for larger sizes if you know what I mean.

In general, I think it would be silly for a shop like M&S not to carry bigger sizes, in fact I notice these seem to sell out first, either because there's more people buying than smaller sizes or they are manufacturing less. The items where they are both larger and taller sizes seem to sell out first, just from what I've seen.

meh, so no sizes for hugely obese people but still catering for the overweight? I couldn't get worked up about that.

I am very tall and most collections dont accommodate that either. never occured to me to moan about lack of 'inclusive' sizing. At least you can try to lose weight. I cannot chop of my legs. just shop elsewhere 🤷

😂

I think M&S are one of the most size inclusive brands on the high street.

I'm short and shop there there simply because they offer petite sizes across much of their range. Most high st retailers don't even acknowledge that women may be different heights.

You can't please all the people all of the time, there will always be someone who is too tall/short, large/thin who will feel excluded, but they will vote with their wallet by spending their money elsewhere.

I am a fat person and I don't really care if the Sienna Miller range stops at an 18. From buying clothes in a size 22/24, I actually don't think the issue is extending size ranges. Extending a standard range up to, say, a 28 often doesn't work. The fashion brands don't consider how body shape as a whole changes at those sizes and you end up with hideous clothes that hang wrong. Say you've got a dress, you can't just increase waist and bust and hips. You also need to think about lengths. You need more length to cover the bum or your knee length dress isn't anymore. All the proportions change. I'd rather have a decent plus sized range designed on plus size bodies than a core range badly sized up.

I'd also like no fucking cold shoulder tops. No floral sacks. No milkmaid dresses. No zany animal print. Give me good clothes, not box ticking clothes.